I,ve used wood stocked guns since the 50's and in all those years, one rifle out of many wouldn't hold it's zero, that was solved by the addition of a bedding block and 25+ years later I haven't had to touch it.So much for wood being unstable. All my rifles are free floated, and i'm sure that helps as does making sure the stock is sealed,inside and out.
As was mentioned above, I don't use my rifles for driving tent stakes just as I don't use my knives as screwdrivers, etc. I use my guns but I don't abuse them.
Wood stocks, especially higher grades have personality, and beauty to behold, something that plastic has none of.
Plastic has it's place in the scheme of things, such as milk jugs, and Chevy pickups but not gun stocks.
1894, nice looking rifle, has a warm look to it.
I do have some microwave cookware though.
Stepchild

For me it is wood stocks all the way and the only guns that I have and use. Dents or scratches do not bother me and just makes me like my gun even more.

Jorge posted



"Show me the data where Tikka has a 1" standard for their rifles to leave the factory"



You asked so here is the link



http://www.ableammo.com/mall/guns_rifle_tikka_main.asp



Here is an excerp from the tikka advertising found at that link



"Tikka rifles: an obsession for accuracy. Tikka rifles do not leave the Finland factory until they are tested for accuracy and meet this strict accuracy requirement: shooting a group measuring under one Minute Of Angle. (One inch or under; 3-shot group at a hundred yards fired from a rest in an indoor range)"

Well, I guess I will have to say I am a firm wood stock person. I have several synthetic stocked guns but nothing comes close to the feel and look of wood.
I can't explain why allen would have problems with the wood stocks changing POI on his wood guns as I have a couple of wood stocked rifles that have hunted in snow, rain, hail and some of the worst weather in the world and never had that problem.
I spent 10 month's on POW working and hunting as time allowed and not a problem of any sort other than daily cleaning and oiling.
One gun was an FN Browning and the other a Pre-64 both in 338 win mag.

I will hunt with a wood stock but prefer Synthetic.

Sorry, but I didn't see that statement coming from Tikka itself but rather a website called Able Guns. It is my understanding that Tikka is owned by Sako? if so, Sako does not appear to make the same statement in the more expensive line. Weatherby does advertise that they are the only mass-produced rifle maker with an accurary guarantee and they do have that on their official website and provide a target with the rifle. Does Tikka do that? jorge

I guess that you will just have to ask Able guns where they get their information.Perhaps you could sue them for false advertising.You would probably find out very quickly if the claim is true or not.

I like the Look of the Synthetic stock. They also help alot in the recoil department and you dont have to baby them all of the time while in the field.

Reloader

Last week I was reminded of where my aversion to synthetic stocks began: saw an old Nylon 66 in a gun rack. It brought back memories of how I hated the cold feel and the sound of that so many years ago when checking out new ones on the racks.

Of course today's products have come a long way, so I am considering a synthetic on my next rifle. But old prejudices sometimes get deeply ingrained and take a while to overcome.

Why a lawsuit? hell, one can then go after Remington for their "most accurate out of the box" lexicon. I don't own/like either of them so I'll leave it up to those that do and I'm not saying the Tikka guarantee is false. I've just never seen it in any of their advertising. jorge

jorge

Sako is owned by Beretta group.

I think the Legend looks alright. I can't see what should be soo exceptiopnal with a Legend compared to a Ed Brown 702, McMillan MCRT, Lazzeroni, Tooley or Bansner?

Each to his own.

/ JOHAN

Johan: My first answer would be most of the ones you listed are not CRF. Miller charges considerably more I believe, Lazzeronis are in my view too "out of the box" and perhaps others that have had experiences with the rifles you mentioned can chime in. jorge

I prefer synthetic stocks for the most rugged conditions as it gives an extra level of insurance, but have never had a problem with sealed, bedded, and floated wood-stocked rifles.

Some of the posts almost seem to indicate wood stocks are totally unreliable. What have hunters and explorers (with far more time in the field than most of us) used for the last 100 years--oil finished wood!

I think it is easy to overlook that there are some benefits of wood such as being easier on the hands in both extremes of temperature. Also if we are saying that accuracy is not everything in a gun, then certainly wood has a place as part of the over-all package of beauty.

Thanks for the post. I have no reason to doubt it. I've never heard anything bad about Tikkas. I've held a couple, but they're not to my liking. With that advertisement, Tikka has the #1 claim on the market now. I still fail to see the comparison between it and a Legend. jorge

If oiled-wood was good enough for all purposes, no one would have ever developed more weather-resistant wood finishes, and later on, synthetic stocks.

Sure, oiled-wood has been around for hundreds of years, but then so have stick bows, flintlocks, and open sights -- all of which remain, yet all of which have been greatly improved upon over time.


AD

While the Legend features a "trued up" M70 action, there is a whole lot more he does to it than just trueing it up. The Legend also features Darcy's custom magazine box that is sized specifically for the chosen cartridge, and in many cases a piece of custom made Burgess bottom metal is also used. Those scope mounts of his are also on there, and I can guarantee anyone that no other rifle sports a better looking or more rugged set of mounts.
Past that, either you prefer fiberglass or you don't. Wood finishes have come a long way and I know Echols uses a finish that allows his wooden stocked rifles to stand up to the worst that Mother Nature can give out. If you prefer real wood and handle it properly it will serve you well. These days I prefer to spend my money hunting rather than paying for fine custom wood stocks!

I prefer hunting with synthetic stocks. So much less to worry about if they get scrated or bumped. I like the wood stocks and my favorite rifle wears wood, but I am a black plastic kind of guy for most gun stocks.

Having said that I will contradict myself by saying I really want to add at least one Boyd's JRS laminated lightweight stock to my collection someday. Should be wearing a mauser X action in either .338WM or .416 Rem Mag. or both

I hunt with wood stocks because I like the looks and feel of wood, but I am considering putting a synthetic stock on one or two of my rifles. The main one I am considering putting a synthetic on is a older tang safety Ruger M77 in 25-06 I recently purchased. Of those of you who know, which manufacturers still offer a stock for the Ruger long action tang safety model? What is the best cheap one, and which is just simply the best?

The 3 Guns I use to hunt are all synthetic, the rest that I like to look at or take for walks on nice days are wood.

I've hunted for 31 years in all kinds of weather, and 27 of them exclusively with wood stocks.



Never have I missed a shot or a shot opportunity because I had a wood stock. Nor did I ever stay home because I didn't want to get my wood stock wet, even though for years synthetics were available, and I don't understand that reasoning.



Do boatowners keep their boats drydocked so the mahoghany and teak won't get wet or scratched? C'mon....God made wood to be refinished.



But I did sweat bullets (ahem) horseback hunting with my custom-wood M70 in the scabbard. So if you do a lot of horseback you should consider synthetic. Or if you're in the habit of dropping your rifle out of trees at 20 feet as my friend did, breaking his Ruger M77 wood through the grip; though when I inspected it there were obvious signs of oil damage.



When I go hunting I choose based on caliber, type of hunting, and whimsy. In that order.



Stock material doesn't really figure (ahem?) into it.

Back around the close of World War II, guys were saying stuff like, "I've been hunting all my life with open-sights, what the heck do I need with a scope?"

AD

In this century guys say I've been hunting with a 300 win mag all my life what do I need a 300 WSM for? ........DJ

Sorry DJ, but that is not a fair comparison .

Chuck

I know Chuck, it was meant as a Joke hence the .......DJ

But we all know that the .300 Win. Mag. is a better cartridge than the .300 WSM! At least I'D like to think so, especially since I've been shooting the .300 Win. Mag. for all these years, and because of that, I'm loyal to it!

And just like some of us are of the opinion that walnut is prettier than fiberglass, and of course functionally it's just as good and at least as weather-resistant and all that stuff as that ugly fiberglass junk!

Not to mention the fact that a good rust bluing job won't rust because it IS rust (of course hot-bluing is also a form of rust, but we won't touch that one!), and it's at LEAST as weather-resistant as loud, classless stainless steel.

Of course, who can forget that NO push-feed bolt action is anywhere near as reliable or in any way as good as a controlled-feed action. No way!

And just like Jack O'Connor said, we don't need some kind of damnable variable scope, just a good four-power!

And here's the big one: The .45-70 has special killing power on big, tough, dangerous African game that transends all conventional wisdom, ballistic reality, and long experience -- especially since it's a new and novel concept with and old, old cartridge. Of course, Magic Bullets help as well!

AD

My ability to discern a wink from a grin from a..... Sucks!

Chuck

I love the look of a pretty, well put together wood gun. With that said, I don't really like to take them hunting. I hunt on horseback the majority of the time and I just don't like what that does to a wood stock and blued metal.

Give me synthetic/stainless anytime.

If I had the jack for an Echols Legend I would send it to Chic for a stock worthy of the metal and get rid of that cheap plastic abomination.

Plastic on an Echols custom, if ever there were an oxymoron...

Just order an Echols Classic.



I'm guessing you've never seen a "Legend"?



Chuck



P.S. If I had the "jack" for an Echols Classic, I'd order two Legends. Even though D'Arcy's Classics are indeed fabulous. I feel I would be better served with this route.

Now THAT'S a brilliant strategy!



I can't think of anyone more qulified to stock his own metalwork in fine walnut than D'Arcy Echols himself.



But guess what, I've got news for you! Echols had misguided potential shortcuts like yours in mind, so he engraves "D'Arcy Echols & Co." on the right barrel shank, and "Legend" (meaning the metalwork originally came with Echols' own fiberglass stock) in front of the loading port.



The only way to get a genuine Echols Classic, complete with a fine French walnut stock, is to order one from D'Arcy Echols & Company. Shortcuts to the genuine article are exposed -- by design -- for exactly what they are.



AD

I prefer my rifles stocked in African Walnut.

Allen,



Resistance to breakage is the only real advantage I see to synthetic and that is a low probability occurence. I appreciate the value of minimizing risk, but except for horseback hunters it's like buying meteorite insurance. Fact is only about .01% of hunters will ever see any disadvantage of wood manifested in a lost big game animal. About 95% of those could have avoided their hunt being ruined simply by having the tube of quick-set epoxy which they should of had in camp anyway. I guess 5% will lose animals because of the walk (if they're able! ) back to camp. The Joe on his hunt of a lifetime is better off worrying about his scope getting damaged in a fall than his stock if he has what he needs to repair it with.



I will concede if I hunted rocks often I would use Hogue's overmolded or tape over my wood with a couple of layers of duct or foam tape to dampen noise.



Funny you should bring up scopes as IMO a scope is the thing that will bring you greatest added advantage on a big-game hunting rifle; a synthetic stock about the least added advantage. (I'd worry about proper bedding, killing glare and having stainless metal long before I'd worry about stock material.)



Of course if your remark indicates you equate any advantage synthetics offer to that of scopes I question your sanity.



Even so the scope comparison is a defective argument, as apples to oranges, because scopes enable one to deliver the shot more accurately but the same cannot be said about stock material except on a case-by-case basis. Even so, why would a man require a scope on his hunting rifle until his iron sights had failed him in the field?



I measure big-game performance only in terms of bullet delivery and scopes offer a distinct performance advantage for me whereas it takes a failure on the part of wood to prove synthetic has a performance advantage over wood.



I simply stated I had experienced no such performance failure with wood; but I haven't dropped it from a tree or had a horse roll on it. (Nor have I experienced failure with synthetics but I haven't left any too close to the campfire yet either.)



My very point was that even though synthetics are more durable in the four years I've owned and hunted with synthetic stocks they have made no difference in the field. Nor in the 27 previous years was there a single instance where a synthetic would have made a difference in the field for me. Nada.



So allow me a snide response to your snide remark,



Why does a man need a Hummer to get to deercamp when his Jeep has never gotten stuck? An advantage never needed is an advantage never gained.



(Here's the funny part--After all that I really can't argue with you now that the cheapest synthetics are as inexpensive as the firewood the mfrs are stocking with now and barrelled-actions so high. I solemnly promise you the first wood stock I have to shift POI or split from having been wet I will restock it with synthetic.... Or a nicer piece of wood. )



Dang, Chic oughta stock one for me gratis after that....



A footnote- a peek in the safe reveals in only five years synthetics account for about 25% of the rifles' stocks; what a hypocrite, huh?)

Beautiful wood is for floors and furniture. All my hunting rifles (22, .223, .270, 30'06, 7mm Mag) have synthetic stocks. All but the composite brl. .223 are stainless steel. I hunt in Maryland and Virginia where it is usually wet and I can't be bothered with wet wood adjusting my aimpoint.

Yes, and Mauser had it right when he designed those boxes for individual cartridges. Echols has just taken it a step further and made his for cartridges that weren't available in 1898. Echols also machines his mounts from billets but does not to solder them to the action. Considering how much thought and work he puts into them, if he thought soldering them to the action would somehow "improve" their function I assure you he would do so.

However, this is not "pissing in the wind" as you stated, nor is it a monopoly. What it is is quite simple. Some makers get part of it right but very damned few get all of it right. A Legend is designed and built to get all of it right....no compromises and no excuses. They're made to perform under the most demanding conditions for the most demanding of hunters. Yes they are expensive, and much of what they offer might be deemed unnecessary by some. If that's your view then find/buy/use whatever you wish from a wide assortment of other offerings.